JUDGMENT

B. N. MAHAPATRA, J. - In this petition, the petitioner challenges the inaction of the opposite party No. 1, Sales Tax Officer, Rayagada Circle, Rayagada (hereinafter called as, "the assessing officer") in supplying certified copies of three slips and thirty-six written pages of one diary taken away by the Vigilance Sales Tax Squad of Berhampur Vigilance Division on the date of surprise visit, i.e., March 12, 2008 and certified copy of the report submitted by the CTO (Vigilance), Berhampur [hereinafter referred to as "the CTO (V)"] on the basis of said surprise visit.

The facts and circumstances giving rise to the present petition are that one M/s. Lakhiram Jain and Sons is a partnership firm. It carries on business in seasonal goods, paddy and broken rice on retail as well as wholesale basis. Besides the trading business, the petitioner - firm is also running a rice mill under the name "bhagabati rice mill". The said firm is registered with the assessing officer under the Orissa Value Added Tax Act, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as "the OVAT Act") with TIN No. 21901602962. It is also registered under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as, "the CST Act"). A tax audit was conducted in the business premises of the petitioner - firm on February 24, 2008. After completion of audit, a tax audit report was submitted to the assessing authority suggesting to take action under section 42 of the OVAT Act in view of certain suppression detected during the tax audit visit. Again on March 12, 2008, the Vigilance Sales Tax Squad of Berhampur Division headed by the CTO (V) paid a surprise visit to the business premises of the petitioner - firm. In course of inspection, the officers recovered one diary/notebook containing thirty-six written pages and three other written slips from the business premises of the petitioner - firm. The notings made in three slips and thirty-six written pages of diary could not be cross-verified with regular books of account of the petitioner as the same were not available in the business premises. Statement of the managing partner, namely, Shri Bhupinder Singh Jain, was recorded on the date of visit who undertook to produce books of account on March 24, 2008 for further investigation. Thereafter, the managing partner appeared before the CTO (V) on March 24, 2008 and produced the books of account for the year 2007-08. On the said date, a statement was recorded from the managing partner of the petitioner - firm. The CTO (V) submitted his report to the assessing officer. Thereafter, the assessing officer issued notice to the petitioner - firm under sub-rule (1) of rule 49 in form VAT 306 for the tax period from April 1, 2005 to March 24, 2008 calling upon the petitioner to appear in person or through authorized agent and to produce books of account on October 25, 2008. The said notice was accompanied by copy of the tax audit report. In response to the said notice, the petitioner moved a petition seeking adjournment for forty-five days on the ground that his accountant had gone to Tirupati and the managing partner, Shri B. S. Jain, had been suffering from high blood pressure with diabetes and was advised to take rest. Considering the said petition, the assessing officer re-fixed the date to November 11, 2008 for production of the books of account for verification. In the meanwhile, on July 18, 2007, the petitioner asked for certified copies of the statements and seized documents mentioned in annexure 1. On November 4, 2008, the petitioner also applied for certified copy of the report submitted by the CTO (V). The assessing officer issued certified copies of the statements recorded on March 12, 2008 and March 24, 2008 but did not issue certified copies of the seized documents such as the three slips, thirty-six written pages of the diary and the certified copy of the report submitted by the CTO (V). Hence, the present writ petition.

Mr. G. Padhi, learned counsel appearing for the petition